Talk:Think different/Archives/2015

Grammar
"Some may suggest that the clause "Think different" is not grammatically correct" -- really, can't wikipedia form an opinion?

if "different" is a Noun here, then it would have to be capitalised. (and for everybody here, Noun is a Noun.)

because of the grammatical mistake, "think different", comes across to me like "be special", a euphemism for being a bit mentally slow, probably not the marketeers intention! try saying it in a Forest Gump accent, for example.

I don't see how changing the slogan into a command would fix the grammar... DevastatorIIC 01:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The phrase is saying "think about the state of being different" rather than "think differently." They don't want to change the way you think, but rather, what you're thinking about. For example, an amusement park designer might be told by his boss, "Think fun. Think family." He's not saying "think funny, think about having a family." :) He's saying, "think about fun things, think about family-oriented things." --Birdhombre 21:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah not to mention that the phrase itself, Think Different, lends itself for you to do just that, and if you are thinking about the grammar of the message, instead of the message itself...then you have failed in trying to "Think Different" (notice the lack of -ly suffix - because...it's different!).

Agree with all of the above. The article either needs support for its assertion of criticism (as well as some support for the other side of it, as outlined above), or this section should be deleted. Apple's intention was surely the construction described above.

I've tagged the two sentences regarding "different" as a noun with Reference necessary. The previous source (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/different) does NOT list "different" as a noun. Suburbanmofo (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The obvious answer is that American English just tends not to use adverbs as much as other dialects of English ("you did good", etc.). End of discussion. On another note, it's highly ironic that the subsection is entitled "grammar controversy". Because "grammar" here is used as a modifier, it should have an adjectival form, i.e., "grammatical controversy". Iain (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Rand?
Surprised to see no mention of Paul Rand on this page.  B.Rossow ·  talk  20:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)